Kettering citizens this election will decide whether, or not, to approve two changes to the Kettering City Charter. Issue 28, if approved, will establish term limits for the Kettering mayor and Kettering Council members and Issue 29 will reduce the pay of the mayor and council members by 50%.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, October 9, the Kettering City Council will vote on a resolution urging Kettering citizens to vote “NO” on both Issue 28 and Issue 29. The meeting starts at 7:30 PM and will be held at the City Building at 3600 Shroyer Rd.

One council member, Rob Scott, is on record as urging a “Yes” vote. Mr. Scott, who initiated the Dayton Tea Party, is now the chair of the Montgomery County Republican Party.   Another council member, Ashley Webb, according to a Terry Morris article in the Dayton Daily News, “opposes cutting the mayor’s pay and limiting consecutive terms in that office, but not for council.” This resolution should inspire an interesting debate at the council, and I am planning on attending the meeting.

Previously I wrote a post that asked, “Are Kettering’s Mayor And City Council Members Paid Too Much?”, and pointed out that Kettering has over 56,000 citizens and when the salary per citizen is calculated, the salary for Kettering’s mayor and council members is about in the middle of the amounts paid to other area mayors and council members.

I spoke briefly with Chuck Horn, former Kettering mayor, who is endorsing both Issue 28 and Issue 29. He told me that when he was mayor in 1978, he earned $6000.  According to InflationData.com, the rate of inflation from 1978 to 2012 is 262.66%. The $6000 Mr. Horn earned in 1978 today is worth $21,756, so the $23,500 earned by the current Kettering mayor seems to be consistent with past amounts paid to the Kettering mayor.

Mr. Horn served in the Ohio Senate 1985-2000. He voted to approve term limits and was term limited in 2000. I asked if he felt that term limits had caused an improvement in the State Assembly and he said, “Probably not.”  He added, however, that he felt at the local government level terms limits would make an improvement.

Both issues are the result of petitions initiated by a group called “Citizens For A Better Kettering,” whose web-site, urges a “Yes” vote saying, “Both Issues Have Been Endorsed by Former Mayors Chuck Horn, Dick Hartmann and Current Councilman Rob Scott.”  From the web-site:

Issue 28: Term Limits

Council has become a rubber stamp with little innovation. Since February 2011 they’ve cast “Aye” votes on every proposed ordinance (1,689 times) without a single “Nay” vote.

Term Limits encourages new candidates to run for office, and assures a periodic infusion of new ideas. Our proposed Term Limits are similar to what Beavercreek, Fairborn, and the Ohio Legislature have used for years.

Issue 29: Pay Reform

Council has often voted themselves annual pay raises during their sitting terms. Council’s budget for salaries is over twice the average of other Dayton suburbs and much higher than Springfield, Beavercreek, Huber Heights, Oakwood, etc.
Our proposal would reset salaries to $8,000/year for city council and $12,000/year for mayor and require public disclosure of future increases before they are voted into law.

Times are tough. Good Stewardship of tax dollars should start with City Council. Our proposed Charter Amendments will bring Council and Mayoral pay back into alignment with neighboring cities, and encourage new leaders to run for election.

Should Ohio’s surplus revenue be used to restore funding cuts to schools and local governments or should the surplus revenue be used to make across the board reductions to the Ohio income tax? In a functioning democracy, any candidate seeking election to the Ohio Assembly would be expected to take a stand on how this budget surplus should be spent.

John Kasich, Republican Governor of Ohio, is estimating that by July 1, 2013, in time for the new two-year budget, Ohio should have a $408 million surplus. And in addition, if the courts rule favorably on the JobsOhio plan, the state will receive an extra $500 million. Then, in addition to these amounts, there is the chance for a big increase in revenue from new taxes on fracking.  Kasich is recommending that taxes on fracking be increased and it is estimated that, if the new tax is approved, over $500 million will be raised each year.

Kasich is already on record as indicating that after replenishing the “rainy day fund,” he wants any surplus to be used to implement an across the board decrease in Ohio’s income tax.

In the last budget, the Republican dominated Assembly had to solve a budget gap and, in order to do so, gave Republican Governor Kasich pretty much everything he wanted —  including big reductions in funding for to public education, and big reductions to local governments. Kasich, it appears, now wants to keep this reductions in place and, according to State Senator, Mike Skindell, in this next budget, Kasich intends on making even more reductions.  See: Mike Skindell, Democrat For Ohio Supreme Court, Says Next Kasich Budget Will “Strangle” Local Communities 

Candidates to the Assembly should be clear. Candidates Should Answer: Spend Ohio’s Budget Surplus On Schools / Local Govt — Or, Reduce Income Taxes?

The Ohio Legislative Service web-site shows a history of Ohio’s budgets and I adjusted each to the dollar value in 2012. For example, I multiplied each budget amount for 1978 by a factor of 4.78, and each subsequent budget year by the inflation index amount.  Some surprising results: The Ohio budget peaked in 2003 and has decreased each year and over the years the amounts budgeted to higher education and to local governments have been greatly reduced.

Each year is multiplied by the appropriate inflation index number in order to show the amount in 2012 dollars. Surprisingly, the Ohio budget peaked in 2003, then diminished.

After 2003, one expenditure category showing sharpest decline is higher education.

Also showing a sharp decline, since the peak at 2003, is the amount allocated to the Local Government Fund.

m

Instead of allowing politicians, every ten years, to gerrymander the districts in which they will seek re-election, Ohio’s Issue 2 empowers a 12 member committee of citizens to, every ten years, redraw the lines.

Describing who should be eligible to serve on this important committee and outlining how members should be chosen, is the heart of Issue 2 and the Ohio State Bar Association is urging a “No” vote on Issue 2 because they don’t like how members of the committee will be chosen.

Ted Roberts explains the OSBA opposition to Issue 2 in an article entitled, “How are NFL Referees and Ohio’s Issue 2 Proposal Similar.”

Roberts writes, “I ask you to join me in voting against Issue 2 — a proposed constitutional amendment that seeks to have judges involved in the way the state draws legislative and congressional maps. Why? Because the plan has a major flaw: Inserting judges in the process.”

Mr. Roberts argues that having appellate judges involved in the process is like empowering NFL referees to choose which players can participate in a given game. He writes:

“Imagine, NFL referees selecting the Browns or Bengals starting quarterback…. What we have here is a case where those supporting Issue 2 are trying to involve the referees who are supposed to be impartial. While we agree that change should be considered when it comes to Ohio’s redistricting process, Issue 2 is simply the wrong answer. So, let’s do the right thing here. Keep the judges and courts where they belong — interpreting the law, not choosing who plays on the teams and which plays to call. Protect Justice. Vote NO on Issue 2.”

There may be some solid reason why it is not a good idea to involve appellate judges in the process of selecting the 12 person commission, and I sought out Mr. Roberts’ article because I supposed the spokesperson for the Ohio Bar Association would have some carefully reasoned argument explaining why the Bar Association opposes Issue 2. But, instead, I found an argument based on a totally false premise — that the appellate judges are directly choosing each of the twelve members of the commission, and that these same judges will be called upon to referee the work of the commission.

Wow. To hear Mr. Roberts tell it, this panel of judges will be sitting around saying things like, “Hey Fred, I’ll let you choose Luigi in Akron if you give me Sally in Dayton.” No. The actual process is much different that what Mr. Roberts would have us believe.

Issue 2 calls for an eight member panel of appellate judges to be chosen by lot, but with no more than four members of the same political party. These eight judges, in turn, choose 42 candidates, divided into three pools. That’s it. The judges choose 42 candidates and that is the end of their responsibility. Through a carefully thought out process, described in the box at left, 30 of these candidates are eliminated, leaving the final committee of 12.

It is hardly fair or accurate to give the impression that the appellate judges are directly choosing the members of the commission. But more than that, the analogy Roberts offers — that these eight appellate judges are like NFL referees — doesn’t hold, because, according to the Issue 2 plan, these judges will never be called upon to referee or resolve any actions by this 12 member committee. Any need for judicial intervention will be the responsibility of the Ohio Supreme Court, not any of the appellate courts.

If the OSBA wants to argue that the process for choosing these 42 candidates, outlined in Issue 2, if implemented would somehow corrupt or endanger the legal system, then I would like to hear the argument. The OSBA Argument That Issue 2 Is Like NFL Referees Choosing NFL Players Amounts To Pure Misinformation. It is an argument not worthy of the OSBA.